In Thomas Nagel's War and Massacre Nagel discusses two different types of reasoning which are the Utilitarian and the Absolutist reasoning. Utilitarian reasoning deals with the ends of an action while Absolutist reasoning assesses the action itself. At the very beginning, it seems that the two are substitutes of each other where only either one is used in certain situations. But later on, we discover that Absolutist reasoning is actually a limitation of Utilitarian reasoning. The existence of these two is also the reason why we have dilemmas that we have to decide on. As Nagel says, there is nobody who completely neglects either reasoning when making a decision. This forces one to have to choose between the end and the action itself. For example, when one decides to rob a bank, he or she needs to decide between being able to feed his family or not stealing because it is not acceptable. Up until now, Utilitarianism aims to maximize good and minimize evil but it doesn't really discuss the means by which you maximize the good and minimize evil. This is where Absolutist reasoning comes in and tries to account for the lack of limitations in Utilitarianism by making the thinker consider the acceptability of his or her action while trying to maximize good and minimize evil.
Moving onto the absolutist restrictions in warfare, Nagel says that there are two types. One type is the restrictions on the manner of the attack. The second is the restrictions on the class of people at whom the aggression or violence may be directed. (Massacre 62) Before we make any acts of aggression or hostility, we need to first determine the true object that deserves this type of treatment. A scenario that can be used to explain these two restrictions would be a situation where someone is throwing grenades at someone else. The person being thrown at should only retaliate to the grenadier and not to anything else that the grenadier may be vulnerable. To distinguish whether an individual is the true object that is rightfully subject to these hostile acts, one must decide whether that individual is the one posing the threat to him or her. The grenadier in this scenario is the true object but the person who is providing the grenades to him is not rightfully subject to hostile treatments because he is not directly causing the harm. As for the restrictions on the manner of attack, there are acts of hostility that Nagel says are never permissible. These acts are the types that aim to "attack the men, not the soldier." (Massacre 70) What I took from this is that the impermissible acts are the ones that cause so much damage to someone to a point where they don't feel like a normal person anymore. So as Nagel says, using a flamethrower against someone is an absolute atrocity because it does so much permanent damage to someone. While Nagel was able to analyze the acceptability of certain acts during warfare, there are still many things that simply cannot be explained by just Utilitarian and Absolutist reasoning.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
What are the things that cannot be explained by just Utilitarian and Absolutist reasoning? As you clearly stated, the point of Nagel’s argument is to define instances in which impressible acts are allowed given the extreme circumstance of warfare. I think it is also important to clarify that the absolute philosophy does not concern impermissible actions when considering maximizing happiness under normal circumstances. Therefore, Nagel deliberately does not explain possible objections to absolutism because they may concern circumstances outside of warfare. Absolutist philosophy dismisses unthinkable actions when they occur as a result of one’s actions. This is distinct from actions deliberately done to another person because generally they only occur in warfare (Massacre 58). After reading your post, I wanted to know what you think Nagel would say about warfare conducted for unjust and unnecessary reasons.
As you mention in your post, Nagel believes that no person can completely neglect either Utilitarianism or Absolutism when making a decision. I agree that choosing one moral system over the other and strictly abiding by its logic all the time is unreasonable. Some amalgamation of both ethical approaches should be utilized when making certain decisions, although as Nagel says, “the dilemma cannot always be resolved” (War and Massacre 54).
Now what I find most interesting is Nagel’s belief that “weapons designed to maim or disfigure or torture” (70) are never permissible, even if it is directed toward a combatant because these weapons “attack the men, not the soldiers” (70). Currently there are international laws, such as the Geneva Conventions which dictate how prisoners of war should be treated, but it brings up an interesting argument. For example, if you were an FBI interrogator and you knew that a terrorist in your custody had important information regarding an imminent attack in which thousands of innocent peoples' lives were at risk, would you resort to torturous activity, like water-boarding or poisoning, in order to make him/her talk? According to Nagel, you couldn’t, no matter what because torture is never acceptable under any circumstances. It’s definitely a difficult dilemma.
Yeah, I have a problem with Nagel’s idea of “attacking the man” instead of attacking the soldier in the circumstances of torture. In this instance, I reject absolutist thinking. I understand the argument of rejecting all kinds of torture here, but if not “torturing” a nefarious terrorist leads to the deaths of many innocent civilians then I have a problem. When it comes to Utilitarianism, I support the idea of maximizing the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people. In my mind, the death of one innocent person at the fault of one terrorist is enough to disturb this idea. One death is enough to prove that we are not maximizing the success/happiness of innocent many people. Later in the section, Nagel talks about the issue of whether or not a combatant should take out a medical officer. It is more efficient to kill MOs and it was seen in Vietnam. However, he says medical attention is a “species of attention to completely general human needs.” My interpretation of this idea is different than his and for me it has to do with honor and respect. I think that a true combatant shows self-honor and respect for his enemy by not attacking MOs. In the situation of the terrorist with the knowledge to save innocent lives, he shows no respect (and no honor) and is not a true combatant. Terrorists are their own class of people because they make a living out of using fear for achieving their goals.
I have a difficult time accepting Nagel’s arguments about restrictions on warfare. He is trying to rationalize the concept of war, creating a list of rules that exclude certain methods, but this is not practical(70).War is irrational and it is a struggle. Prohibiting cruel weapons does not make war acceptable. A gun is used to kill the other person, and it can also induce cruel injuries. Once the trigger is pulled, it doesn't discriminate between a prohibited target or one that is less cruel. A standard weapon doesn’t have the ability to determine who is a combatants and who is a human being. Why is shooting medical officers restricted? Because they are not-combatants? They are still the opposition and are attending to the combatants so that they may heal and pursue their goal again. And if it is not allowed to kill someone simply because he is in the army, is it really acceptable to kill him once he is holding a gun? (69) Even though he says he does not mean to romanticize war,(71) by outlining restrictions and determining what is cruel, that is essentially what he is doing. I disagree with his restrictions because no matter what, war will still be cruel. It cannot be something moral and just as VTang says, there are still many things that simply cannot be explained by just Utilitarian and Absolutist reasoning. People will still feel guilty about their actions in war because they are still causing harm. Morality would not be achieved in spit of leveling the playing field.
This article and blog comment stirs up quite a debate. Is it right to do something wrong when the outcome is good? This is essentially what we have been talking about all semester, and it is the fundamental question behind consequentialism and inconsequentialism. Nagel claims here that there are some things that we simply cannot do no matter the situation or potential consequences. There are unthinkable acts which one can never be morally justified. Nagel goes on to discuss war and says that there are some acts which although they are bad in certain situations, can be justified in others. This, to me, allows far too much leeway when considering some actions, and presents some flaws in the entire logic of consequentialism. My main qualm with the philosophy is that any action has an infinite amount of consequences that are both direct and indirect. Do we simply neglect to take in account all of the indirect consequences? Take for example the bombing of terrorists in the Middle East, while we may kill one dangerous criminal, we also can potentially kill many innocents. While the direct effects of this may be beneficial, if the terrorist was going to attack other civilians for example, the negative indirect effects of killing innocent people may eventually outweigh the positive end that was killing the terrorist.
To comment on the previous comment, we discussed in class about these indirect effects. They are merely calculated side effects. If we bomb a city to kill one man, it is assumed that everyone in the city, civilian or criminal, will die. The dilemma is then whether or not the civilians lives are worth the criminals. This would most likely be a situation where if you chose to bomb the city, you would take direct responsibility for the death of everyone in the city. If you chose to let the criminal escape, you would take negative responsibility for every future crime that criminal commits. All in all it is a very situational decision. As for some of Nagel's battlefield restraints about what is allowed and what is not, some of it seems quite impractical. In war, if you do not fight to win, you will most likely end up dead. Therefore, it seems that it would be necessary at times to use the most efficient weapon for a certain situation, because sometimes it is not necessary to kill an enemy to incapacitate them. Shooting a person in the leg or arm is not fatal and can be fully healed, but it would affect their life for a short period of time, outside of the battlefield. It is a shot to maim and not to kill, but in some cases, it seems to be a better shot because it will result in a victory without death, but then again, this is a very controversial topic.
Nagel's idea that makes the most sense to me is to respect the humanity of others in warfare. If war is the only option, (which I never think it should be) but if the world leaders decide the only way to resolve conflict is war then we must treat it as in exercise in which only those who actively particpate are included. The difference between the medicial officer and the soldier, is that the soldier is an active participant. He or she knows that his or her life is at risk and by signing up for the war they are dedicating their lives to the cause. The medical officer, on the other hand, is simply dedicating his or her life to helping others, and deserves no impact of the "game" these world players are playing. If you fight in the war, you acknowledge that that is the purpose you are willing to die for. If one is not under full awareness that he or she is a participant, he deserves no part in the war. What would you say about people who are drafted? They are participants in the war, so they are fair game in that respect, but it wasn't their choice, so they are average people (would be civilians) in another respect.
I feel as if the best way to characterize the utilitarian point of view in this debate is to reference the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WWII. More than 100,000 people lost their lives, innocent people that is, but Japan showed no intent of stopping the onslaught of fighting. As a result, the United States sacrificed 100,000+ people in order to save at least a million people, and according to Sidgwick, mathematically the consequences are worth the risk. On the other hand however, it seems as if the absolutist argument revolves around this idea of, in war you must either kill the soldier, or not; wounding a man with a gun shot, causing him to lose his leg would make him not feel like a normal person.
I like the way this piece ended by saying "There are still many things that simply cannot be explained by just Utilitarian and absolute reasoning." As Nagel points out that their are two ways to view such acts during war, however as the author illustrates at the end neither will suffice in giving the "retaliator", for lack of a better word, justification for their actions. Nagel lays a solid base to attempt to look into the reasoning behind actions in warfare, however, like this blog post, there is not much closer to the subject and a real sufficient "guideline" to be followed.
I agree with what Nagel says in terms of his annalysis on acceptability of certain acts during warfare. However, we must keep in mind that the main end result in war is always going to be victory. Therefore the use of a flamethrower would help to get closer to victory because it would put a psychological effect on other soldiers. A man is much less likely to fight knowing the damage a flamethrower can inflict upon them.
Could we not argue in this case that the Absoltutist (action) of using a flamethrower is justified because the end result or conclusion results in victory because the enemy gives up.
I disagree, to a point, with Nagel on his idea of seperating the person from the combatant. A person signs up for the armed forces with the realization that if captured bodily harm could ensue (yes there are international laws that dictate how POWs must be treated but these aren't always followed). If a terrorist is captured, Nagel believes torture or other bodily harm is not allowed. However, this enemy combatant may have vital information on attacks or the hierarchy of the terrorist organization (I would still consider him a combatant because he or she may still have valuable information). What would Nagel say to all the innocent victims whose lives were ended because of terrorist bombings? These victims are not calculated side effects.
War and the absolute atrocities that occur during it pose many conundrums for philosophers or even someone who just wants to understand it. If we look at it from an absolutist perspective such unthinkable acts such as the use of biological weapons and torture are impermissible. Yet, they have still occurred in war. Thus, they are sometimes employed to hasten the war and make it come to an end more quickly. For example, the firebombing of Tokyo and other Japanese cities during the Second World War was set in place to save the lives of American soldiers. But there is no proportionality here how does killing a million or so civilians justify saving the lives of 10,000 soldiers. An absolutist would say this is unthinkable because there is no separation between person and combatant.
In response to both James and Beqir comments concerning the direct and indirect effects of warfare I think that it is not only the effects we necessarily have to concern ourselves with, but also if the negative responsibility outweighs those effects. Using Beqir's example about bombing a city in order to stop an escaped criminal, I believe that both the indirect and direct effects completely outweigh the negative responsibility of the criminal's possible future crimes. The amount of innocent people that would die from the bombing would be far greater than the amount of innocent people harmed by the criminal's future actions. From a Utilitarian perspective, the choice to bomb the city in order to stop an escaped criminal would be considered wrong since the consequences of that bombing would result in far more casualties than a single individual could cause, unless of course the individual is the one dropping the bomb.
Post a Comment